45. See esp. Justinian, Novels 5, 123, and 133, but also 7.11, 22.5, 67.1, 76.1, 79, 131.7. On late-antique legislation on the monastic life see Frazee (1982); also Sterk (2004) 163–77.
46. See, e.g., Justinian, Novels 5.3 [Schoell and Kroll 31f.], 123.36 [Schoell and Kroll 619], 133.1 [Schoell and Kroll 667].
47. Flusin (1983) 137–54. See esp. Cyril’s brief description at Life of Euthymius 41 [Schwartz 61] of the monk Domitian, who “earned a reputation in the coenobium, demonstrated manliness in the laura, and became eminent in the deserts.” For this shift from anchoritic to coenobitic in Palestinian monasticism see also Bitton-Ashkelony and Kofsky (2000); Lesieur (2011) esp. 6–25.
48. Flusin (1983) 182–200.
49. See esp. ibid. 146f.; 153f.; also Hombergen (2001) 338–49, esp. 342f.
50. See Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Sabas 83–90 [Schwartz 187–200]; cf. also idem, Life of Cyriacus 11–14 [Schwartz 229–31]. For the obscure fifth-century background to the apparent resurgence of Origenism in Palestine, see Perrone (2001) 246–49.
51. For the text see Justinian, Edict against Origenism [Schwartz 213f.]. For analysis see Guillaumont (1962) 140–43; Louth (2003) 1173f. It draws upon Origen’s Peri Archōn; see Hombergen (2001) 23 n. 6.
52. For the text see Fifteen Canons against Origen [Straub 248f.]. Cf. Diekamp (1899) 90–96 (left col.).
53. Fifteen Canons against Origen 2 [Straub 248].
54. See Fifteen Canons against Origen 6–9, 12–13 [Straub 248f.]; for discussion Guillaumont (1962) 147–51. Cf. also Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 4.38.
55. Guillaumont (1962) 151–59; also idem (1961b). Cf., however, Perczel (2001) 262–65, arguing that the anathemata represent a later elaboration of Evagrius’s position. See also Bunge (1989) 89f.; Louth (2003) 1168.
56. See Justinian, Letter to the Synod on Origen [PG 86, 991A]; cf. Diekamp (1899) 90–97 (right col.). On the precise origins of the anti-Origenist anathemata see also Richard (1970) 243–48; Flusin (1983) 83; Perczel (2001).
57. Barsanuphius and John, Questions and Answers 600–602 [Neyt and Angelis-Noah 812].
58. Barsanuphius and John, Questions and Answers 603 [Neyt and Angelis-Noah 814]. For analysis of these letters see Guillaumont (1962) 124–27; Perrone (2001) 251–55; Hombergen (2001) 222f., 284–86; idem (2004).
59. See Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Sabas (e.g.) 72 [Schwartz 174–76], 84 [Schwartz 189f.]; with Hombergen (2001) 133–38.
60. See CPG 6813–15. For the identification of the two see, e.g., Richard (1947) 32f.; Evans (1970) 147–85; Hombergen (2001) 147–55.
61. See, e.g., Richard (1947); Evans (1970), (1980); Gray (1979) 90–103. The work of Perczel, e.g., (2000b), we should note, sides with Evans.
62. Daley (1976) esp. 366 (following Guillaumont [1962] 161f.), Daley (1995); also Lynch (1975). The Lives indeed presents the Origenists as the “more educated” (logiōteroi) and, in one place, as considering the classic Origenist doctrines of the soul’s preexistence and of apokatastasis as “indifferent and harmless” (mesa kai akinduna); see Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Sabas 88 [Schwartz 188]; Life of Cyriacus 12 [Schwartz 229]; with Hombergen (2001) 231–52.
63. See Leontius of Byzantium, Against the Nestorians and Eutychians [PG 86:1, 1285A–B].
64. See esp. Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Cyriacus 11–14 [Schwartz 229–31]. For speculation on the origin of Cyril’s information see Guillaumont (1962) 150f.; Flusin (1983) 81–83; Hombergen (2001) 255–87. Cf. also George Hieromonachus, On Heresies 9, with Richard (1947) esp. 243–48.
65. Although Origen was condemned at the council, the aforementioned fifteen anathemas were produced and ratified before it; see Diekamp (1899) 131–32, 137; Guillaumont (1962) 133–40; Hombergen (2001) 287–328.
66. See Flusin (1983) 41–86. The apparent exception is at Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Sabas 3 [Schwartz 88], echoing Evagrius Ponticus, On the Eight Evil Spirits [PG 79, 1145A], but as Hombergen (2001) 225f. indicates, substituting the Evagrian praktikē for agathoergia.
67. Hombergen (2001) 368. For a similar suggestion see Perrone (2001) 246, 256–58. Cf. the archaeological comparison of Sabas’s Great Laura with the New Laura in Hirschfeld (2001) 345.
68. See esp. Perczel (2006–7) 52–57.
69. In general Cyril’s hagiographies are replete with references to monastic ordination, but for the specific ordination of his protagonists, all at the same stage of their careers, see Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Euthymius 5 [Schwartz 13]; Life of Sabas 19 [Schwartz 103f.]; Life of John the Hesychast 3 [Schwartz 202]; Life of Cyriacus 7 [Schwartz 226]; Life of Theodosius 1 [Schwartz 236]; Life of Theognius [Schwartz 242]; Life of Abraham 2 [Schwartz 244]. On ordination within the text see Flusin (1983) 148–53; Sterk (2004) 203–6.
70. Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Euthymius 28–29 [Schwartz 45–47]. For scattered reference to Cyril’s monks taking the eucharist, both public and private, see Patrich (1995) 245–52.
71. Barsanuphius and John, Questions and Answers 605 [Neyt and Angelis-Noah 824–26].
72. See above n. 24.
73. For the minimalist approach to the ecclesial sacraments in post-Evagrian ascetic theorists see, e.g., the comments of Plested (2004) 111, 114f., 197f.
74. Philoxenus of Mabbug, Letter to Abraham and Orestes [ed. and trans. Frothingham 28f., 44–46]; and Michael the Syrian, Chronicle 9.30. On Stephen see also Jacob of Serug, Letter to Stephen bar Sudaili. For analysis see esp. now Pinggéra (2002) 7–22; also Frothingham (1886); Hausherr (1933); Guillaumont (1961a); Widengren (1961). On the text of the letter see also Jansma (1974).
75. Philoxenus of Mabbug, Letter to Abraham and Orestes [ed. and trans. Frothingham 28–31].
76. Philoxenus of Mabbug, Letter to Abraham and Orestes [ed. and trans. Frothingham 36–37].
77. See Hausherr (1933) 186f.; also Guillaumont (1961a) 1483. For the Origenist influence see Marsh (1927) 247f.; also Widengren (1961) 161–68, distinguishing the cosmological influence of Origen and the anthropological influence of Evagrius.
78. See, e.g., Harb (1969).
79. Watt (1980), contra Guillaumont (1962) 207–13, 231–58. For Philoxenus’s sanitized Evagrianism see also Halleux (1963), e.g., 423–28; Daley (1995) 629f. For his eucharistic emphasis see Michelson (2008). For the sanitization of Evagrius in Syriac see also Guillaumont (1962) 259–90, on the Evagrian commentary of Babai the Great.
80. For the identity see Frothingham (1886) 49–55, 63–68; Marsh (1927) 222–32; and now Pinggéra (2002) 7–26.
81. For a précis of the contents see Frothingham (1886) 91–111; Marsh (1927) 204–10.
82. For this Evagrian influence on the Book of the Holy Hierotheos see esp. Hausherr (1933) 187–92; Pinggéra (2002) 70–73; also Guillaumont (1962) 318–23; Daley (1995) 630.
83. For the date of Stephen’s arrival, ca. 509–12, see Frothingham (1886) 57–59; for Cyril’s date for the outbreak of the crisis, in 514, see Diekamp (1899) 17. For the coincidence see Guillaumont (1962) 305; Hombergen (2001) 360–65.
84. Stephen bar Sudaili, Book of the Holy Hierotheos 3.7 [ed. and trans. Marsh 72*–74*, 78–81]. Cf. Arthur (2008) 133f. on this “spiritual and allegorical” interpretation of the eucharist.
85. For discussion of these early references see Rorem and Lamoreaux (1998) 11–18. Arthur (2008) 104–9. Despite his apparent miaphysite origins, however, Ps.-Dionysius was quickly adopted by both anti-Chalcedonians and Chalcedonians; see Rorem and Lamoreaux (1998) 18–22.
86. For various attempts to identify him see, e.g., U. Riedinger (1956: